Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure
PDF version

Adam C. Herman

Landmark Center One
315 E. Robinson Street, Suite 550
Orlando, FL 32801
(407) 420-4382
(407) 839-3008 - Fax

Adam concentrates his practice in the areas of construction defect litigation, professional liability and property and casualty claims.  He frequently serves as defense counsel for a number of contractors and subcontractors in construction defect claims and defense of attorneys in legal malpractice claims. Adam also defends class action lawsuits in areas of employment law and bankruptcy law and has experience  defending individuals and entities in claims involving Florida’s Consumer Credit Practices Act and its counterpart, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including a number of published Decisions in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  He has represented numerous corporations in breach of contract, breach of the good faith and fair dealing, as well as violation of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Adam has also successfully tried many cases to verdict and has also argued before State and Federal Appellate Courts. 

In 1991, Adam graduated from the University of Miami where he received a Bachelor of Arts Degree is Psychology.  In 1998, he earned his juris doctor at Nova Southeastern University School of law, where he graduated cum laude.  During his studies, Adam received academic awards in constitutional law, admiralty and corporations.  He was selected by the Phi Delta Phi National Honor Fraternity based on his academic achievements.

Adam is admitted to the Florida Bar and is a member of the Trial Lawyers Section, and is also a member of the American Bar Association.  He is also admitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and Middle District of Florida, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  

Significant Representative Matters

  • Tried to verdict a negligence claim against an Apartment Ownership Group for an improper construction of a stairwell.  Defense verdict.

  • Tried to verdict claims of breach of warranty, fraud, and breach of express warranty against roofing/tile manufacturer.

  • Tried to verdict construction injury claims where plaintiff, a sixteen (16) year old at the time, claimed extensive brain damage.  Plaintiff sought $24 million.  After apportionment and setoff, jury awarded less than $600,000.00.

  • Resolved breach of warranty, negligence, and breach of contract claim again developer under wrap policy brought by Association.  

  • Successfully resolved claims of negligence and breach of contact against the design build MEP engineer involving humidity control in a food processing facility.  Plaintiff claimed $14 million.  The case was resolved for $2.6 million. 

  • Attained dismissal of cause of action from the District Court, Middle District of Florida, of a claim against our attorney, client, alleging violation of bankruptcy law.  Plaintiff was claiming class action status and, excess of $1 million. 

  • Successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of subcontractor against general contractor where general contractor had brought claims for breach of contract, negligence and violation of Florida's Building Code.  Third-Party Plaintiff, general contractor, was seeking approximately $600,000.00.  The trial court granted summary judgment and awarded our client attorneys' fees pursuant to a Proposal for Settlement which was recovered from the general contractor to the benefit of the insurance company.   

  • Resolved breach of contract and tort action brought by general contractor against subcontractor for $9.9 million by demonstrating that damage may have been due to sequencing of project rather than improper installation of glazing materials.

  • Defeated Section 1983 claim brought by plaintiff against attorney, hired by court appointed receiver, where plaintiff sought damages of $30 million by demonstrating that attorney was not state actor. Affirmed by Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • Resolved breach of contract and tort action by owner against general contractor where demand was $1.5 million by demonstrating that damage was associated with manufacturing defect and product was purchased by the owner.

  • Resolved breach of contract claim brought by general contractor against subcontractor where demand was $5.7 million by arguing that leakage around window was not associated with glazing but the failure of a through wall moisture barrier.

  • Obtained a dismissal with prejudice of his attorney clients, in a quasi legal malpractice case asserting violation of FDCPA, FCCPA, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Plaintiff alleged his ex-wife’s attorneys violated the FDCPA and FCCPA by attempting to collect tutoring charges incurred on behalf of the couple’s son pursuant to a Marital Settlement Agreement.  The District Court for the Middle District of Florida held the collection of tutoring fees in an underlying state family court matter does not constitute a “transaction” under the FDCPA.  Moreover, there was no malicious prosecution since there was no basis for the Plaintiff to plead lack of probable cause. Finally, the District Court held the alleged actions of the attorney filing suit could not form the basis of an intentional infliction of emotional distress because the suit was barred by Florida’s litigation privilege.


Published Works

  • “Substituted Service: The Lazy Plaintiff,” Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 2018


  • Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center, Fort Lauderdale, FL (J.D., 1998)

    Honors: cum laude

    Book Award: Constitutional Law, Admiralty, and Corporations

  • University of Miami, Miami, FL (B.A., 1991)

    Major: Psychology

Defense Digest Article June 1, 2018
Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 2018 By Adam C. Herman, Esq.* Key Points: Carriers rarely challenge substituted service upon a defendant. Plaintiffs rarely satisfy the requirements for substituted service. Failure to satisfy..., If you are defense counsel or a claims adjuster, you have likely been there. A client/insured is nowhere to be found. The Florida State Division of Corporations identifies the company as being administratively dissolved. The only reason the..., Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 2018. Defense Digest is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal...
Feb 17, 2017
Obtained a dismissal, with prejudice, of a legal malpractice claim where the plaintiff alleged the law firm violated the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA). The plaintiff brought a one-count complaint in the U.S....
Dec 6, 2016
We successfully obtained summary judgment and final judgment in a construction defect matter. A condominium association brought multiple claims against a general contractor and developer. In turn, the contractor brought third-party claims against...
Jun 8, 2015
Obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of a bank in a Florida trial court for lack of personal jurisdiction, and also obtained a per curiam affirmance by the Fifth District Court of Appeals. The plaintiff, a Florida corporation, alleged...


  • Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center (J.D., cum laude, 1998)
  • University of Miami (B.A., 1991)

Bar Admissions

  • Florida, 1998
  • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, 1998
  • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, 1998
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit, 1998

Associations & Memberships

  • American Bar Association
  • Florida Bar Association (Health Law Section, Trial Lawyers Section)

Year Joined Organization: 2003


  • Phi Delta Phi

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."